"Rubyxx" <rubyxx@chessxtra.co.uk> writes: >Maybe the best option is to just install a 2nd hard drive, and put Linux on >that. if you don't have the Windows Vista disk, I wouldn't mess with the >pre-installed drive at all. >Removing Windows Vista entirely is a damned expensive way to install to >Linux. In what way is tht expensive? The "cost" of vista is a sunk cost. You cannot retrieve it. To base bad decisions on sunk costs is one of the great fallacy of economics. >Rubyxx >"Ton 't Lam" <ton.tlam@casema.nospam.nl> wrote in message >news:70fa9$46dbcf7e$5352f129$8590@cache100.multikabel.net... >> Dear all, >> >> I'm bringing up a new Acer Aspire 5630 (2 Gb mem) for my daughter. She >> worked effortlessly with Linux the last 6 years, and she prefers to use >> this OS. However the Acer comes with a Vista image on the HD. Acer (and >> other manufacturers) don't deliver installation disks, unless bought. So, >> if you want/need these, you have payed twice for the same MicroSoft stuff. >> What a sad situation. Uh, no, they should give you an installation disk nyway Vista now has a "resize partition" function which you can use to reduce the size of the vista paration and then you can use Linux to put it into the now emptied space on the hard drive. >> >> The issue is that starting the new PC will force to install Vista. After >> browsing for some hours, it brought me me to the next options: >> >> 1) Install Vista, and from there load Cygwin to have the desired Linux >> tools, and OpenOffice. This is just a matter of installing. Should be >> straightforward. >> >> 2) Do a partitioning of the HD. I understand partitioning tools comes with >> Vista. Then install Fedora, or Ubuntu on the second partion. What are the >> experiences with this approach ? Thus have Vista dormant available, and >> just use Linux. Vista now has a partition shrinking tool. Use that. >> >> 3) Following (2), install VMWare, and have the possibility to launch Vista >> from the first partion, if desired. Or do an image copy to the Linux HD, >> and consider Vista on the first section as the golden image. What are the >> experiences here ? What are the do-s and particularly the don't-s. Bad idea. >> >> Thanks in advance >> Ton >>

BillinDetroit <billnot@nmwoodworks.com> writes: >Rubyxx wrote: >> Hmm! Thats a bit like saying I'll throw away my Ford, for nothing, and pick >> up a brand new Toyota. Sunk cost or not, what we throw away usually has >> value. >> >> Microsoft may not be loved, but Windows Vista may turn out to have a value >> greater than zero. That may be the actual valuation if he merely replaces >> the old hard drive with a new one and then installs Fedora Linux. >> >> Zero is not a reasonable value in this case, I think. >> >> Rubyxx >> >Although I got a kick out of the "child abuse" posting, I have to agree >that Vista is not without value. In fact, you guys have inspired me to >look into getting an external HD case for my wifes laptop. >Some people, like myself, are willing to learn to use computers as an >end in itself. My wife is not one of those. Although she formerly used >Linux, when we bought a new laptop for her, it came with Vista. Once she >learned to navigate to what she needed in Vista, (I had left it on so I >could get a feel for it) she was very definite that it should be left in >place. She doesn't like it ... but she hates learning new software even >more than she hates Vista. Her employer, however, has a website that >referrer checks for the OS and browser (thus helping to perpetuate the >lock-in) and wants to see Win98 and MSIE or nothing at all. I believe that you can tell Firefox and Konqueror to claim they are any browser you desire. Someone else will have to tell you how. >So she has been using 98 from an old Dell that is just about dead (no >display, unpredictable keyboard). But that HD is only a couple years old... >One note to the guy who rejected VMware / Win host / Linux guest: >Laptops are notorious for having limited functionality with Linux. >VMWare provides a way to evaluate how a particular Linux will work on a >particular piece of hardware. I have no interest in games ... none at >all ... but before I trash a working install of Windows, I want to be >certain that I am not giving up anything that I need. >I agree that there is a security differential between the two ... but I >have a good AV on the Windows partition and a firewall on my router. I'm >not invulnerable (even BSD is not invulnerable), but the dangers I face >are no more than reasonable ones. You can also use one of the single cd versions of live linux-- EG, I like MCNLive based on Mandriva but others have other favourites. It does not matter but you can run it all from CD and do not have to install anything. >So ... given that the choice I face is to either 1) run Linux in a VM >while I test it prior to installation on the boot sector or 2) keep XP >on this machine forever, I think that using a VM makes good sense. >I am NOT stupid enough to vaporize the XP install before I KNOW how the >Linux install is going to perform and what sort of price I am paying to >use it.